would perry work to change the constitution?

[geronimotwo]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.htm

citing his book "fed up, our fight to save america from washington", this article is claiming that perry would like to work towards the following changes in the constitution:

abolish lifetime terms of federal judges.

allow congress to overide the courts with a 2/3rds vote.

scrap federal income tax.

stop the direct election of senators..

require the balancing of the federal budget.

reqire marriage to be between a man and a woman.

make abortion illegal nationwide.

wwould anyone here be able to verify this?

[TommyGunn]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.htm

citing his book "fed up, our fight to save america from washington", this article is claiming that perry would like to work towards the following changes in the constitution:

abolish lifetime terms of federal judges.
Possibly a good thing? 

allow congress to overide the courts with a 2/3rds vote.
Congress is already able to tell SCOTUS it cannot touch a particular subject; I do not believe this power has ever actually been employed.  This may be feasible.....
scrap federal income tax.
An amendment to the Constition was passed to permit the tax; it could be repealed the same way just as prohibition was.  Here it depends on HOW Perry did it.  He could use the presidential "bully pulpit" to argue for it, that would be fine.

stop the direct election of senators..
Another constitutional amendment issue as the above; personally I would be all for it, as the states lost an enormous amount of power inside washington when direct elections started.  And DC has been bullying the states ever since.

require the balancing of the federal budget.
A GOOD thing!

reqire marriage to be between a man and a woman.
Nothing in the Constition prohibits this.  While I tend to agree that marriage is between one man and one woman, I don't have a big dog in the fight, just an annoying little lap dog yapping at the wind blowing.

make abortion illegal nationwide.
Another possible thing that could be done.  It would make half the country go ballistic; you'd have to convince many people that killing unborn babies is murder.  I never understood the difficulty of this, but I don't pretend to understand the shifting vagaries of public sentiment.

wwould anyone here be able to verify this?

My reaction in red.

I can't really verify it but it doesn't sound outlandish that these would be on Perry's agenda, given what I've heard of his religious proclivities.

[longeyes]

Mostly good ideas, but if they happen it won't be in the confines of the current America.  Maybe in the next iteration.

[seeker_two]

He's already backpedaling from some parts of his book....

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/08/18/perry-is-less-fed-up-over-social-security/

....I expect more backpedaling in the future.... 

[longeyes]

The next election will pit the socialist technocrats against the evangelical mystics.  The man of reason has no place to hang his head.

[geronimotwo]

i don't have a problem with the term limits, as long as we don't run out of good judges.    three of them (the amendments) i could easily go along with.   i'm not sure of the ramifications of allowing congress to overule the supreme court, or the idea of allowing my state government to elect my senators.  my biggest problem with his "amendments" come with the last two (blocking gay marriage, and abortions), as i have always looked at the constitution as a set of rules to limit our government, not the people.

[Perd Hapley]

my biggest problem with his "amendments" come with the last two (blocking gay marriage, and abortions), as i have always looked at the constitution as a set of rules to limit our government, not the people.

Recognizing "gay marriage" is an action of the government.

[Strings]

>as i have always looked at the constitution as a set of rules to limit our government, not the people.<

DINGDINGDING! We have a winnah!

>Recognizing "gay marriage" is an action of the government.<

Actually, it would just be extending protections of certain rights to a group that doesn't currently enjoy such.

And before you saddle up your arguments, Fistful, keep in mind that almost every argument against such is based on a religious viewpoint, of a faith *I* and many others) don't follow...

Honestly though, I would much rather the Feds were taken out of the "marriage argument" altogether. Make the governmental permission slip (for ANY form of domestic partnership) a civil union, which is a cohabitation contract between any two or more consenting adults, and grants all the same protections as the current rules on "marriage"...

[Jamisjockey]

Recognizing "gay marriage" is an action of the government.

Which is why government should get out of the business of recognizing marriage at all. 

[Perd Hapley]

And before you saddle up your arguments, Fistful, keep in mind that almost every argument against such is based on a religious viewpoint, of a faith *I* and many others) don't follow...

That's a myth, but even if it were true, I never use such arguments. Come to think of it, I don't need or have any arguments about this issue. Just refutations for whatever silly justifications folks come up with. Burden of proof is on the other side.

>Recognizing "gay marriage" is an action of the government.<

Actually, it would just be extending protections of certain rights to a group that doesn't currently enjoy such.


Honestly though, I would much rather the Feds were taken out of the "marriage argument" altogether. Make the governmental permission slip (for ANY form of domestic partnership) a civil union, which is a cohabitation contract between any two or more consenting adults, and grants all the same protections as the current rules on "marriage"...

You've contradicted yourself. Thanks.  


Edit: Slight change in wording.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Which is why government should get out of the business of recognizing marriage at all. 

The real trouble there comes in with the laws on child custody, child support, and (above all else) alimony payments. For instance, there would be great screaming from certain quarters if divorce from wealthy men (even if it's all the woman's fault) didn't come standard with a million-dollar severance package.

According to some, the declining interest in marriage in Europe and Canada has less to do with the acceptance of gay marriage and more to do with alimony and custody issues that have become ridiculously biased.

[Strings]

Maybe I didn't phrase that well enough.

From what I've seen, the argument lately really isn't about the protections provided for straight couples but denied gays. The argument has really been about the term "marriage". So remove the term from the table, leaving it in the hands of the clergy. For the secular issue, use civil unions (or whatever term you prefer).

You really can't argue that gays have the same rights as straights: too many cases of long-term gay couples having issues concerning inheritance and hospital visitation, to really say they have the same rights.

And going to head you off at the pass on another: yes, they COULD find a heterosexual partner. And in the '60s, mixed race couples could always have stayed with "their own kind". Wasn't just then, isn't just now...

[Perd Hapley]

And going to head you off at the pass on another make a specious comparison to make you look like a racist: yes, they COULD find a heterosexual partner. And in the '60s, mixed race couples could always have stayed with "their own kind". Wasn't just then, isn't just now...

Not this stuff again. That "argument" holds no water. It is a sieve. No, it is not a sieve, it is a hula hoop. To compare a racial difference to a sameness of gender is beyond arbitrary; there is simply no connection. Yet it is repeated over and over again.

[Strings]

nice modification of what I said. Completely bloody wrong, but nice all the same.

It IS the same concept. Based on the idea that these folks, instead of being in a partnership with someone they love, should instead choose to be in a partnership with someone society thinks is "acceptable".

Can take that argument back to turn-of-the-century America, where all the European folks didn't intermarry because it wasn't acceptable...

[Perd Hapley]

It IS the same concept. Based on the idea that these folks, instead of being in a partnership with someone they love, should instead choose to be in a partnership with someone society thinks is "acceptable".

Can take that argument back to turn-of-the-century America, where all the European folks didn't intermarry because it wasn't acceptable...

Ah, logic by assertion. And by this logic, when a same-sex couple is turned away at the courthouse, they are actually being pushed into a relationship with someone else? Are they handing out brides and grooms there, or how does that work, exactly?

[geronimotwo]

Not this stuff again. That "argument" holds no water. It is a sieve. No, it is not a sieve, it is a hula hoop. To compare a racial difference to a sameness of gender is beyond arbitrary; there is simply no connection. Yet it is repeated over and over again.

it is exactly the same argument.  individual rights are exactly that.   when everyone is willing to accept that personal liberties are not exclusive to those who look or act like "us" all the great things our forefathers wrote about will eventually be realized.  (heck we may even start to accept nerds into our society)

[Jamisjockey]

The real trouble there comes in with the laws on child custody, child support, and (above all else) alimony payments. For instance, there would be great screaming from certain quarters if divorce from wealthy men (even if it's all the woman's fault) didn't come standard with a million-dollar severance package.

According to some, the declining interest in marriage in Europe and Canada has less to do with the acceptance of gay marriage and more to do with alimony and custody issues that have become ridiculously biased.

Recording a legal contract would still be a vital governmental role.....and outside the constructs of religion, that is all that a marriage is, a legal contract between two persons. 

[Perd Hapley]

it is exactly the same argument.

Ah, logic by assertion.

Whether or not government recognizes same-sex couples as marriages isn't a matter of personal liberty or individual rights. The law doesn't stop them from living together, holding wedding ceremonies, or the like. They are free to do these things, but they can't claim a right to have a non-marriage recognized as one, anymore than I can claim a right to have my Matchbox car licensed as a motor vehicle.

[Perd Hapley]

Recording a legal contract would still be a vital governmental role.....and outside the constructs of religion, that is all that a marriage is, a legal contract between two persons. 

Two persons of differing sexes, you mean. Any mention of religion is a red herring.

[Strings]

>Ah, logic by assertion. And by this logic, when a same-sex couple is turned away at the courthouse, they are actually being pushed into a relationship with someone else? Are they handing out brides and grooms there, or how does that work, exactly?<

Let me give you an example of the kind of thing we're looking at.

Jim and Dave have lived together for 20 years. Bought a house, supported each-other in successful careers, nursed each-other through illnesses: been, for all intents and purposes, a single entity. Their families both disapprove.

Jim becomes terminally ill. While he's in the hospital, Dave is at his bedside (much like you would be for your wife).

At the same time, Jim's family sweeps in. Changes the locks on the house (which was in Jim's name), and basically takes everything the two of them had. Dave's legal recourse is nil, as they don't enjoy the same legal protection a married couple does.

Yes, they COULD have spent thousands of dollars, drawing up wills and suchlike. To get the same protections Spoon and I got for $65 at the courthouse.

That's just one example of the inequality, Fistful. There have been same-sex partners barred from being at their partners bedside in the hospital, numerous examples of the above story, and other legal entanglements... all of which would have been avoided if they had that protection.

So... let the government handle the legal contract issue, make it between any two or more consenting adults (with no other qualifiers), and let the churches handle the word "marriage"

[wmenorr67]

>Ah, logic by assertion. And by this logic, when a same-sex couple is turned away at the courthouse, they are actually being pushed into a relationship with someone else? Are they handing out brides and grooms there, or how does that work, exactly?<

Let me give you an example of the kind of thing we're looking at.

Jim and Dave have lived together for 20 years. Bought a house, supported each-other in successful careers, nursed each-other through illnesses: been, for all intents and purposes, a single entity. Their families both disapprove.

Jim becomes terminally ill. While he's in the hospital, Dave is at his bedside (much like you would be for your wife).

At the same time, Jim's family sweeps in. Changes the locks on the house (which was in Jim's name), and basically takes everything the two of them had. Dave's legal recourse is nil, as they don't enjoy the same legal protection a married couple does.

Yes, they COULD have spent thousands of dollars, drawing up wills and suchlike. To get the same protections Spoon and I got for $65 at the courthouse.

That's just one example of the inequality, Fistful. There have been same-sex partners barred from being at their partners bedside in the hospital, numerous examples of the above story, and other legal entanglements... all of which would have been avoided if they had that protection.

So... let the government handle the legal contract issue, make it between any two or more consenting adults (with no other qualifiers), and let the churches handle the word "marriage"

Also it should remain a state issue not an issue for the Fed to be involved.  Hell they can't do the job they are supposed to do correctly.

[Strings]

True.

Honestly, I use this one in discussion to explain "compromise": one side gets to define marriage as "one man, one woman", while the other side still gets to have the legal protections that were the start of the whole "gay marriage" issue.

My real favorite though, would be the Full Faith and Credit Act. A bill that on one hand, causes all marriage certificates issued by any one state to be recognized by all others. And on the other hand, causes any CCW issued by any state to be recognized by all others.

Could watch both the left AND the right twist and turn on that one...

Anywho: this does NOT have any reason to be put into the Constitution, one direction or the other. That document is a limit on governmental authority: defining what "marriage" is should be outside it's scope

[wmenorr67]

I agree.  The only thing I see that could pose a problem and it shouldn't be is with the repeal of DADT in the Military.

There is a huge can of worms that is about to be opened and it is going to prove to be interesting.

[Perd Hapley]

That's just one example of the inequality, Fistful.

So your complaint is that two unequal things do not receive equal treatment.    You may think that two men are the equivalent of a married couple, but you are simply wrong and you cannot guilt me into agreeing with you. And the rest of America doesn't seem to be agreeing with you, either.

Anywho: this does NOT have any reason to be put into the Constitution, one direction or the other. That document is a limit on governmental authority: defining what "marriage" is should be outside it's scope

Why?

[wmenorr67]

You know an atty could make a fortune in writing up legal documents for same-sex couples to cover all the bases.  Wouldn't have to charge a lot but maybe a standard fee schedule based on the types of forms required.